FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 246471, June 16, 2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DIEGO FLORES Y CASERO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
R E S O L U T I O N
LOPEZ, J.:
The conviction of Diego Flores for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the subject of review in this appeal assailing the Court of Appeal s' Decision1 dated May 31, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08634, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court.
That on or about 13th day of October, 2009 around 12:00 [p.m.], in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [Flores], not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, trade, deliver and give away to another a white crystalline substance which when tested is (sic) positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, [a] dangerous drug, weighing 0.03 grams, contained in a heat transparent plastic sachet in violation of the above-cited law.9Diego denied the accusation and claimed that he was on his way to work when a police mobile parked beside him. Suddenly, three armed men in civilian clothes alighted and pointed their guns at him. One of them searched him but found nothing. Yet, he was forcibly brought to the police station and was interrogated. The person who earlier searched him demanded P5,000.00 in exchange for his liberty. Unable to produce the money, they detained him and was placed under inquest proceedings.10
Section 21, paragraph l, Article II of RA 9165]In earlier cases, this Court ruled that the deviation from the standard procedure in Section 21 dismally compromises the evidence, unless (1) such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.17 Later, we emphasized the importance of the presence of the three insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and the photograph of the seized items.18 In People v. Lim,19 it was explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance, thus:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
[Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165]
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and /or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies or the inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are property preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis Supplied.)
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umpiang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law tor "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, al so convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. (Emphasis in the original)Indeed, the presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.20 In People v. Caray,21 we ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule. Similarly, in Matabilas v. People,22 sheer statements of unavailability of the insulating witnesses, without actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 3-18. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Pablito A . Perez.
2 Id., pp. 5-6.
3 The boodle money is a P200.00 bill with initials "ML."
4 PO1 Leal marked the plastic sachet Diego's initials "DF."
5 Id., pp. 6-7.
6 Id. at 7.
7 Physical Science Report No. D-475-09S.
8 PCI Tecson sealed the item, marked it with "D-475-09S" and his initials "AVT".
9 Rollo, p. 3.
10 Id. at 7-8.
11 CA rollo, pp. 47-68. The RTC Decision disposed as follows:WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [RTC) finds [Flores] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R. A. No. 9165 and hereby sentences him to life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).12 Rollo, pp. 17-1 8. The CA disposed as follows:
The preventive imprisonment undergone by [Flores] shall be credited in his favor. The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn-over the methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of the case to [PDEA] for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.On May 31, 2018, the CA rendered the Assailed Decision denying the appeal for lack of merit and affirming the RTC Decision. The appellate court held that Flores was not able discharge his burden of proving that the evidence was tampered, thus, failing to overcome the presumption of regularity in the discharge of duties of the police officers. The dispositive portion reads:13 People of the Philippines v. Partoza, G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated August 23, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203 in Criminal Case No. 09-681 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
14 People v. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017.
15 People v. Bugtong, G.R. No. 220451, February 26, 2018.
16 R.A. No. 10640 took effect on July 23, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015. As amended, it is now mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence or (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official and (3) a representative or the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
17 People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222. October 29, 2008, citing People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173501, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750; People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 174771, September 11, 2007, 532 SCRA 630; People v. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 489.
18 People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019.
19 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
20 People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018.
21 G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
22 G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
23 People v. Patacsil, G.R. No. 234052, August 6, 2018.
24 People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002): and Lopez v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008.
25 People v. Dela Cruz, G.R . No. 181545, October 8, 2008